The case for a one-way manned mission to Mars

Would you get on a spaceship headed for Mars if you knew there was no way of getting home again?

An article due to be published this month in the Journal of Cosmologyasks that very question. Dirk Schulze-Makuch, a Washington State University associate professor, and Paul Davies, a physicist and cosmologist from Arizona State University argue that allowing for no return trip would slash costs, allowing humanity to get started sooner, and ensure a long-term commitment to colonising the planet.

The article, titled "To Boldly Go: A One-Way Human Mission to Mars", discusses exactly how such a mission could be accomplished. Mars has already been widely agreed in the scientific community to be the most promising planet for sustained colonisation and development, so the first step would be to select an appropriate site for a colony.

Somewhere close to one of Mars' plentiful lava caves would be necessary, to shield the colonists from ionising and ultraviolet radiation from the Sun, as Mars has no ozone layer or magnetosphere. Caves near to Mars' former northern ocean could contain ice, which would help solve some of the water and oxygen needs of a colony. The proximity of other mineral resources could be a factor too.

The pair suggest that the best approach might be to select four astronauts initially, sending them on two spacecraft, each with a lander and sufficient supplies to sustain them and a basic outpost.

Colonists would then supplied with basic necessities over time by unmanned spacecraft from Earth, and perhaps extra personnel, but would otherwise be expected to harvest local resources and eventually become self-sufficient. "It would really be little different from the first white settlers of the North American continent, who left Europe with little expectation of return," said Davies.

The paper bears a clear influence of the great age of European exploration, with one particularly utopic section reading: "A permanent human presence on Mars would open the way to comparative planetology on a scale unimagined by any former generation. A Mars base would offer a springboard for human/robotic exploration of the outer solar system and the asteroid belt.

"Establishing a permanent multicultural and multinational human presence on another world would have major beneficial political and social implications for Earth, and serve as a strong unifying and uplifting theme for all humanity."

As for volunteers, Makuch and Davies claim that they've found plenty. "Informal surveys conducted after lectures and conference presentations on our proposal, have repeatedly shown that many people are willing to volunteer for a one-way mission, both for reasons of scientific curiosity and in a spirit of adventure and human destiny."

Would you go?

Edited by Nate Lanxon

Comments

Although i suspect there would be many volunteers for such a mission, I feel that once the full implications of the kind of sacrifices needed to make such a project a success would, ultimately make this project unrealistic. I do not feel that the human psych could endure the hardships and isolation from family, friends and loved ones indefinitely.

I don't think the analogy of the early pan-atlantic explorers is an apt one because the expectation was to reach the far-east and in the process, prove that world could be circumnavigated. Dangerous yes, but hardly one way.

Guy Hunter

Oct 20th 2010

Oh wow... Let's send scientists that are in prison for life..

They would go.

I'm sure they won't just send anyone to Mars without the proper training and or evaluation. They'll probably put 100 imprisoned scientist thru some sort of screening, for maybe 2 years, while they're living in some sort of simulated eviroment. The best 4 candidates get to go.

Not all prisoners are evil, they just made a bad s choice and this would be there new chance in life... VERY NEW!

Apphen

Oct 20th 2010

From pre-historic times to the Mayflower, colonisation has been a one-way trip, and it hasn't always been successful. I think you'd easily find more than enough suitable candidates for such a trip, without combing the prison population for condemned scientists.

Lex

Oct 22nd 2010

Even in the 19th century, emigrating to the US was viewed as a one way trip. Yes, in theory you could buy a ticket back home, but in reality no-one expected that they would ever be able to afford it. Folk said goodbye to their families fully expecting that they would never see them again. And still they went in their millions. I suspect we could send millions to mars if only we could afford the fare.

Andy Brazil

Oct 22nd 2010

Lets be clear about this..

1) Mars will NEVER be a comfortable or pleasant place to live, even in the most optimistic scenarios.

2) In the most optimistic scenarios, the number of humans that will ever travel to Mars is utterly insignificant when compared to the human population of earth.

Please let's concentrate on preserving the paradise we already have. One planet; one chance.

felix

Oct 25th 2010

In reply to felix

Yes, Felix. There's no reason to explore beyond this planet, with its fleeting resources and steady assurance of eventual overpopulation.The Earth IS flat, after all.

Michael

Mar 7th 2011

I'd go in a heartbeat.

nic

Oct 26th 2010

I think the comparison with the colonisation of America is weak, too. The Europeans who colonised America would have been almost unable to even comprehend a planet or country devoid of all life; at least they knew that food was growing on the other side of the Atlantic. Fine, you could send supplies in spaceships from Earth, at a cost of millions of dollars each time, but what about when the oil, or the cash, runs out? It would take thousands of years to make food grow on Mars, so a colony could never be self-sufficient.

Let's look after our own planet.

Fodaro

Oct 27th 2010

I would go on this trip so long as I had my friends with me =). They're all scientifically minded liek me =)

Amibitious young man

Nov 7th 2010

I believe an aspect that is not typically mentioned with regards to the one way trip is that although there is no Planned return trip. After 10 or 20 years, technology may (will) have advanced sufficiently to allow for a quick and cheap trip back.

GregO

Nov 10th 2010

Lol is this a joke? "It would really be little different from the first white settlers of the North American continent, who left Europe with little expectation of return," said Davies.Oh yeah, traveling across the void of space to a completely different planet with no ozone layer and very little (if any) resources is basically the same thing as crossing the atlantic. Bullshit. This guy needs to go crawl in a hole.

Todd

Feb 8th 2011

It will happen ... sort of like Trains and Planes and deep sea exploration ... Human inspiration has many levels and NEEDS the "cliff edge" challenge to feed the Fire; sort of like putting some Wolf Blood into the domesticated breed to make it what it should be ... a Growl not a whimper !

anthony connor- bingham

Feb 22nd 2011

Erm, how about trying it out on the moon first eh? Lets see how we can setup a base underground and become self sufficient there where its going to be easier to cope with emergencies... It's a hellavalot closer and oh I don't know, we might learn a few things before throwing people to Mars where there is no chance of helping.

fungle

May 22nd 2011

We've been practising this for years; the globe is full of 'Eden Projects'.. we will get there because this 'paradise' as someone called it, is in fact going down the drain very, very quickly. A planet who's population is stripping it of every 'natural' resource will 'naturally' shrug off the culprits one way or another, but I agree with Fungle, we will be practising on the moon first, I'd love to see an 'Eden Project' setup on the moon.

Myk

Jul 25th 2011

If you lived in the time of America's colonization, with little understanding of science, I can see the correlation between that and a trip to Mars. Everyone relax. Why this hostility? Unfortunately, with budgets shrinking for space exploration, I feel the speed of tech and understanding will suffer. But if we don't destroy ourselves first and we ever get to that point of an "Eden project", sign me up!

Daniel

Aug 2nd 2011

it would make sense to me instead of wasting money on sending anyone to mars it would be better to spend the money on developing a propulsion system that would take humans to mars or beyond in a short time, this is possible and has already been discussed, so what we need to do is get all the best brains from the world and develope this system then it becomes easy to travel anywhere that the human race wanted to go, leave exploring other worlds till we can actually do it with ease and safety